**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER**

SELLERS **&rrORNriY**

**OeNERAL**

**---------.~..,~** Ronorable Alwln E. Rape county **Attorney** Oaadalupe County seguln, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. o-7246
Re: Effect ortax redu

a8 follows:
ThhsRlmCresk heretorore reoeired Stats al iug and oollectlng th quired by auahAot. levied ior the ional 25#tax was extra tranep0rtat10n vlad for the year of Yeduoationhas adtkatr aid. The ' ta, is whether the Leg001 distridt the right to andthen to return to its receive Stats aid.

so arises as to whether a school ax rate to meet the sxpmueonecssar, without jeopardizing its qualiflCatiOn other words, it seemsto us that a aorrsct he InCent of (this **Act)** is **that** within the coyered by (the **Act)** there must be u0lowering that Diatriot that was being crasessed at ths bsginulng or that period."

gee. 2, Article I, Ch. 361, Aots 1945 (SeB. 167, 49th Leg.), the psrtinsnt portion of the Act in question, reads as iollows: "no school district shall be eligible to remire any type of aid authorized **under**the prwieions of this Act **udlefis** it shall **bs**prodding ror the annual supporty$on.Alwin E. Paape,Page 2

of It8 sohoole byvoting, lsrylng and oollecting sor the ourrent aohool year a looal maintenanos Lohool tabtof not ls@s than BlSty Centa (50#) onthe &a hundred Dollars ($100.00) OSproperty valuation in the entire dietriot. Theproperty valuations ehall not be less than said property la valued for state andoounty purposea. The inoome from suoh amaintenance tax in exoeas of the required PiSty Cents (SO@)maintenance tax muet Slrst be used to rstfre **lndsbfsdnees, I.9** any, in the local and Equalization (Rural Aid) sahool funds. Aster the lndebtednrss in these iunda, if any, has been retired, the inoommfrom this maintenanoa tax in exoeas of the required F’iSty Cents (bO$) maintenance tax maybe used at the dlsoration of the looal school authorities of the distriat for any lawful aohool purpow except lnoreaalng or eupple- @&nting any teaoher’s or adminietrabive salaries., Any or all malntenanos tax above Fisty Cents (5Ofomaynot be lnoludad ln the oaloulation of need SOSaid, but &all bsreported In the budget with an ltemlesd atatsment of it,8 **rrpenditaxem.** Is the income from the maintenance tax above Fifty O@ts (5Og) la not spent aa preaoribed heroin, it shell be Included a8 reosipbs in the bud&et. In order to comply with the terma of this seatlon, It shall be neoesmry for cmohschool dietriote applying for anytype of al& authorlmd under tha terms of this Aot, to report all v&&uatlons within auohdietriots, inoluding all oonsolidated dlrtriota and anmxsd dietriote, andfailure to report all euoh vdluatlone ehall prevent suoh dlatriot iron moel~- lng eny type OSaid authorized under this aot,

w* rt * * * * ”

. OT~ddrraaoriugours)
Theunderactored provision of the above-quoted hot haa been dlscueeed in several previous opinions of this Department in oonneotion widthSaot eituatlona similar to the one presented In your,letter.

In prevlouti Opinion No. 0-7260, weheld that suohabovequoted provision was oonstitutional. In pretioua Opinion No. o-7017, addrrseed to the PIrat Akslatant State SuptkrintsnrhHt of Publfo Inatruotlon, weheld that school dicstrlote whioh had reduood their tax rata du$?lngthe aahool year, 19434.4, wereHon. Alwln 3. Pape, Page 3

not sligibls to reaelvs aid under the said provision, even though such school dietriots hadnowayof knowing that an action whioh thslr boards took nearly twoyears ago**would** affeot themadversely in scouring aid udder the current Equalization Act. Viequote from suah opinion as Sollowa:

*The **Sorsgolrg** rovlsfons of de,. 2 (underscored portion quoted abovelpare plain andunambiguous. They mustbe aomplled with in order for any sohool dietriot to be eligible **for** anytypo of aid

. . , . Whether suoh provision is wise or unwise, Is not for this Department to detrrmins. TheLegislature is the publlo polioy forming bod of thls state. Its Acts, when not in aoniliot wtth 

### our**.!i** tatr Conatitutlon, or **our** Bederal Conetltution and the laws of Congress passed thereunder, are not for us to qua&ion, **but must** **be**upheld and enforoad. *WhenbhoIntent Is plainly expressed in tha language of a statute, it **mat** be &van effect without attempt17 **to oonrtrur**  **or lntrrgrst**  the law.* **39**Tax. Jur. p. 1 8.” (Parsnthstloal insertion added).
Our

### pre~loua

Opinion, MO.O-6768, held to the same sSSm* aa thr **above**quotrd opfnion, with the added holdlag that the above undersoond portion of SIo. 2of the Act would aply to pmvsnt a reduction in the tax rats of a distrlot w hp ohhas oontractsd to send all of its aoholastios to another dietriot. Subssqusnt to the above altrd opinions, this Department

### ruledin two reoent Opinions, No. O-7217 and o-7403, as Sollowa : (a) That where, for administrative reasons, a sohool district reduoad its valuations and, at the same time, lnoreased its over-all tax rahi, tharsby retaining the samenet total tax revenue as b~fors, or slightly incrsasing the ssme, its ellgibllitg for squali%etiOn aid washot assectsa, slnoe the valuations were held not to have been rsduoed in order to showbudgetary need. (b) Thatwhere a sohool district rsduoed its maintenance tax rate Srom$1.00 to 50$, andthen levied a SO# bona tax, the district did not disqualiiy itsslf for 6:ld because n&her the over-all tax rate nor the **tdUath¶s** hadbeen reduced, andthersfore, ths statutory prohibltlon wasnot applicable, It will be obsarvud that suohHon. Alwin E. Pape, Page 4

prohibitory portion contained In the second paragraph of Sao. 2of the Aot relates to the over-all tax rata and is not confined to the maintenance tax, ~8 is the wording in the first ¶graphof such saotlon.
Weattaoh oopies of all the above oitad previous oplnions of this Department for your oonvenienoe.

Turning nowto the questions you havepropounded, we answer your first auestion to the effect that the seoond paragraph of Sec. 2of the ourrent Equalization Aid Aot (oltad supra) does denyto a school district the right to increase its tax rate for one year andthen to decrease its tax rate so aato return to the original tax rata, and stS.ll(yaliSy for State ald, if suoh deoraase osmrrad within the twoyear period Ismedlataly praoedfug the,year for whioh aid Is appllad for under the currant +ot,

Your saoond Question 1s answered to thr aamaeffaot, u. ) a sohool distriot maynot, under the terms of tha OUCwnt Aat, Sluatuata Its tax rata S?omyear to yesar to aaat changing expense raquirements without jeopardizing Its quallfiaatlon for State aid, i~fbysuoh Sluotuatlons ite ovar-all tax rate is thereby decreased to anyextant within the abova-aantlouad twoyear period, evan though suoh decrease does not lower the tax rate whloh wasbeing 

### assessared at the beginning of such twoyear parlod.

In our answer to your quastlons it Is to be noted that wa refer to decreasea in the over-all tax rata as heretofore stated, either the tualntahance or the bond tax rate maybe changed without jeopardy provided the over-all tax rata is not thereby decreased, andprovided, further, thst the maintenanoa tax is not deoreasad below 5Oa.

Websve careSully ooosldered your ar,gumentsagainst the rolihg of the State Department of Xducation relative to the raatrl#A.ona of the current Equalixatlon Aot and our previous opiniona, attached harato, disousa In somedetail the pointa ralsed In your brief. Werepeat, therefore, that whether the provisions of the currant Equalization Aot are wise, or unwise,it Is not for this department to jud$a. Theprovision In question is plain andunambiguous andmust b+ complied with in order forHon. Alwin E, Papa, Page 5

anysahool aiatrict to be ali(;ibls r0r any type 03 aid under such Act. Trustiq that wshave rully an8vm-d your questions, waramin,

Yory truly yourr
ATTORNEY Gi%XWIAL

CFTKXAS

_ --r /g?i+- d& .S 

### W.N.Blanton,Jr Amistant.



### wNB/JMo